Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Griswold v. Connecticut

2009-06-01T22:51:48Z

Pjscool:

'''''Griswold v. Connecticut''''' (381 U.S. 479) was a [[United States Supreme Court]] case involving the constitutionality of a Connecticut statute (law) prohibiting the use of [[contraception]] by unnatural means, such as artificial birth control. ''Griswold'' is considered an important, if unfortunate, [[precedent]] in United States [[constitutional law]] and is considered to have created a "right to privacy" not present in the [[U.S. Constitution]]. This precedent was later used as the foundation for the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' line of decisions which declared state laws prohibiting [[abortion]] to be [[unconstitutional]], and the [[Lawrence v. Texas]] decision which made the criminalization of [[homosexual behavior]] unconstitutional.

[[Appellant]] Griswold was the Executive Director of the [[Planned Parenthood]] League of Connecticut. [[Appellant]] Buxton was a licensed physician and a professor at the [[Yale]] Medical School who served as Medical Director for the League at its Center in New Haven. Both had been arrested for violating a Connecticut law which made it a crime punishable by a $50.00 fine and/or 60 days imprisonment to use "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception"<ref>381 U.S. 479, 480 </ref> and which extended the same penalty to anyone "who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" <ref> ibid </ref> to do so. Griswold and Buxton had been convicted of prescribing contraceptives to married couples in violation of the Connecticut law.

The [[opinion of the court]] was delivered by [[Justice]] [[Douglas]], and, after finding that the appellants had [[standing]] to invoke the [[constitutional rights]] of the married people they had provided contraception to, went on to find that the Connecticut law violated the [[penumbra]] (shadow) emanating from the [[First Amendment]], [[Third Amendment]], [[Fourth Amendment]] and [[Fifth Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which created a "[[zone of privacy]]" around the married couples Griswold and Buxton had assisted. This reasoning explicitly relied in part on the Supreme Court's previous decision in [[Mapp v. Ohio]] ('''367 U.S. 643'''), a case involving [[search warrant]] issues, and ''Griswold'' is often considered by lawyers to be a [[legal progeny]] of ''Mapp'', in the same way that ''Roe'' is a progeny of ''Griswold''.

Justices [[Black]] and [[Stewart]] dissented.

==References==

<references/>
[[category:law]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:judicial activism]]

Talk:Carrie Prejean

2009-06-01T22:48:40Z

Pjscool:

Wondering if we should include Hilton's allusion to the "c word". I had thought yes because it revealed how bigoted he was, but perhaps we should not allude to profanity. What does anyone think? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 00:03, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

:I only used it because it was being used on the daytime news. That being said, it could easily be changed to be more descriptive and not a direct allusion. Let me try something I just thought of and let me know what you think. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 11:26, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

:Or, you know, not. Do we really need an edit block due to trolls now? Anyway, here was my idea:
<blockquote>
In response, many members of the audience cheered or booed. Hilton predictably disliked the answer and attacked her publicly on his blog, stating, "She gave the worst answer in pageant history. She got booed. I think that was the first time in Miss USA ever that a contestant has been booed. She lost not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage." Hilton went on to say that Prejean lost because she was "a dumb..." and used a vulgar but commonly used word to insult women to describe Prejean. Hilton issued a half-hearted apology, but later went on national TV to rescind his apology and to say at the time he was actually thinking of a different word that is even more vulgar.
</blockquote>
:[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 11:36, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

== Lack of media coverage on Trump announcement ==

From what I understand, the announcement took place yesterday morning. By last night, there weren't a whole lot of decent, non-hostile sources solely dedicated to the accouncment from which to draw from for what I added. Even now, there isn't much more than there was last night.[http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=prejean+trump&cf=all&scoring=n] I guess the media didn't like Trump yanking the football away. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 07:53, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== ERROR RE FIRST AMENDMENT IN MAIN PAGE ==

The phrase "she dared use her First Amendment rights" incorrectly uses the term First Amendment rights, which apply only against a governmental entity, and the Miss USA Pageant is not such an entity. No constitutional rights were implicated.
:constitution applies to all americans.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:15, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
:Seriously, this isn't something intelligent people need to debate. There's no First Amendment issue, and the page is just plain wrong. First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..."--[[User:Pjscool|Pjscool]] 18:48, 1 Jun 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Carrie Prejean

2009-05-29T22:08:42Z

Pjscool:

Talk:Roe v. Wade

2009-05-28T18:25:30Z

Pjscool:

==''Roe'' and Judicial Activism==
This article's locked for editing, but I think it might be worth mentioning the dangerous influence of judicial activism present in this ruling and the dangerous precedent it sets somewhere in the introduction. Can we unlock it or can a sysop add this? [[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 21.22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

----

I've deleted the comment about Roe being a lesbian. It seems the kind of thing a reference is needed for. One for her real name would be nice too. [[User:Lil_cain|lil_cain]] 03.43, 10 March 2007 (GMT)

LOL! Great edit, Lil Cain. If she really was a lesbian, it's funny that she got pregnant. I would think a cite would be needed for that...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I've also edited out the section about no one caring about the judgement for a time. Even if it was not widely known(something I don't have the first notion about), I'm sure a substaintal minority of those affected did care at the time(I am of course open to being rebutted on this, but with references preferably)
also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion
[[User:Lil_cain|lil_cain]] 03.46, 10 March 2007 (GMT)

also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion

Added the meat of Blackmun's opinion along with re-added the section on controversy. Controversy is, obviously, informative as to the social ramifications of the opinion.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Trimesters ==
There is no meaningful distinction between trimesters in Roe v Wade. Reginod, your edit is not correct. Roe v Wade allows abortions in all 3 trimesters. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Roe v Wade allows abortions in all 3 trimesters, but that doesn't mean there's no meaningful distinction between them in the decision. Blackmun's decision said that, in the first trimester, there's no compelling state interest in abortion, and the doctor and his patient are free to terminate the pregnancy without interference from the state. After the first trimester, according to the decision, the state is free to regulate abortion so far as it relates to the health of the mother...the state can demand that the abortionist be licensed, that abortions must be performed in a hospital, or other things like that. After the fetus is viable, according to the decision, the state is free to even ban abortions, unless an abortion would be neccesary to "preserve the life or health of the mother." So while Roe v Wade allows abortions in all three trimesters, it also, as the pregnancy goes on, places more restrictions as to when and how an abortion can be performed.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: That is just not correct. Some states have tried to ban third trimester abortions, and the courts have thrown out the ban ever time. Third trimester abortions cannot be banned under Roe v Wade. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::First of all, my edit replaced the questionable language with the language of the Court. I did not speculate about what the Court’s language meant in practical terms, I simply said what the Court said. My edit is truer than what was there before, as what was there before put the language you are suggesting in the mouth of Blackmun where it does not belong. Second, the section I edited was about the opinion in Roe v. Wade, not the way that opinion has been interpreted—you are talking about what has been done in reading the opinion, not what the opinion actually says. Third, most of the bans that have been struck down have been struck down because they do not include an exception for the mother’s health (the Court said that the States can ban abortion in the third trimester “except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”--language I included in m edit) Fourth, a number of restrictions short of total bans have been upheld under Roe v. Wade. For example, waiting periods were upheld in Planed Parenthood v. Casey and parental consent and/or notification laws were upheld in Bellotti v. Baird. Finally, you are simply wrong, see [[Gonzales v. Carhart]] where the Court upheld a total ban on partial-birth abortions (while explicitly not overruling Roe).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is only one way to read Roe v Wade, and that is to require a constitutional right to abortion throughout the entire 9 months. That is the only way anyone has ever read it. That Blackmun quote is misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:35, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I see we are on misleading again, but I won’t be bated by you this time.
:::::The quote comes from the Courts official ruling, it comes from Roe v. Wade, it is part of Roe v. Wade, it is, in fact what Roe v. Wade says. I understand that you don’t like what it says and that you like what it is read to say even less, but that doesn’t change the fact that the words I put on the page are, in fact, what Roe v. Wade says (if there is only one way to read Roe v. Wade, I hasten to add, those words CAN’T be misleading as they are the words of Roe v. Wade).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:50, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Your addition seems, to me, to be about right. I would change “All state regulations of late-term abortions have since been found unconstitutional.” to “All state-level total bans of late-term abortions, and late-term abortion procedures, have since been found unconstitutional.” (Since, as I noted above, some regulations of abortion, including late term abortion, have been upheld). And I would change “This was the first significant abortion regulation that the Supreme Court has allowed since Roe v Wade” to “This was the first complete ban on a particular abortion procedure found to be constitutional since Roe v. Wade”. This avoids judging the significance of the other regulations that have been upheld (both sides of the debate have called them significant, so I would avoid such sweeping language to the contrary).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Seeing no objections, I will make the suggested changes.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Article incorrectly states that "Roe provided the underpinning for cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut." This is impossible since Griswold predated Roe by about 8 years. One would likely be correct in saying that Griswold provided the underpinning for Roe.

Sonia Sotomayor

2009-05-28T18:18:53Z

Pjscool: removed statement of opinion

'''Sonia Sotomayor''' (born June 25, 1954) is a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On May 26, 2009, President [[Barack Obama]] nominated her to the [[Supreme Court]], to replace retiring Justice [[David Souter]]. Sotomayor, {{age|1954|6|25}}, is the first [[Hispanic]] nominated to the high court. Indeed, she is the first American of Puerto Rican descent ever nominated to high office.<ref>Puerto Rico has been part of the U.S. since 1898, and residents gained full citizenship in 1917.</ref>

Obama said she "is an inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice." According to the ABA Journal,<blockquote>
"... the Bronx-born Sotomayor has been regarded as a potential high court nominee by several presidents, both Republican and Democrat. Reared by her widowed mother after the death of her father, a tool-and-die worker, she has an attractive life narrative and an even more attractive resumé. She was an editor of the Yale Law Review, did heavy lifting as a prosecutor under legendary New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, and worked in private practice as an intellectual property litigator. She was first appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush, then to the appeals court by President Clinton." <ref>http://abajournal.com/news/who_will_replace_justice_souter</ref>
</blockquote>[[File:Sotomeyer-Szep.jpg|thumb|240px|caricature by Paul Szep]]

==Opinions==

===Doctrine of [[Standing]]===
Decisions by Sotomayor, such as Taylor v. Vt. Dept of Ed. 313 F.3d 768 (2002), seem to show that she favors [[judicial restraint]] with respect to standing issues.

===Terminology===
An analysis of Sonia Sotomayor's decisions shows that she sometimes uses [[conservative]] terms, such as the following:

*'''strict constructionist''' ''New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council v. Hotel Ass'n,'' 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16615 (1993)

*'''judicial restraint''' "venerable ground of judicial restraint" in ''Michel v. INS,'' 206 F.3d 253, 267 (2000)

*'''competition''' (in an economic context) Many cases.

*'''efficiency''' ''Singh v. City of New York'', 524 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2008)

*'''free-market''' ''Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Comm.,'' 880 F. Supp. 246, 256 (1995)

*'''separation of powers''' ''European Cmty. v. RJR Nabisco,'' 424 F.3d 175 (2005)

*'''transaction cost'''' ''Calif. Pub. Emples.' Ret. Sys. v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc.'' (In re NYSE Specialists Sec. Litig.), 503 F.3d 89, 94 (2007)

*'''illegal alien''' ''United States v. Acevedo'', 229 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2000). In fact, Judge Sotomayor has used the term "illegal alien" to describe a defendant in five opinions, ruling against the defendant all five times. In one of those decisions, Judge Sotomayor held that the court should defer to legislative classifications of alienage under the most deferential "rational basis" level of review.<ref>''See'' ''United States v. Ni Fa Yi'', 951 F. Supp. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).</ref>

However, Sotomayor uses liberal terminology far more frequently,and often instead of more accurate words with conservative connotations:

*'''anti-abortion''' Sotomayor uses this term rather than "pro-life" in ''Amnesty Am. v. Town of W. Hartford,'' 361 F.3d 113 (2004) and ''Ctr. for Reprod. Law v. Bush,'' 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2002)

*'''pro-choice''' ''Ctr. for Reprod. Law v. Bush,'' 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2002) and ''Flamer v. City of White Plains,'' 841 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)

*'''environmental''' Heavily used in more than twenty of Sotomayor's decisions.

*'''racism''' ''Washington v. County of Rockland,'' 373 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2004) and ''McNeil v. Aguilos,'' 831 F. Supp. 1079 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)

==Issues==

===Abortion===
Abortion supporters are alarmed that in a series of cases Sotomayor has consistently ruled against the abortion advocates. The White House has stated that Obama did not ask her views on abortion or privacy.<ref> See [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?th&emc=th Charles Savage, "On Sotomayor, Some Abortion Rights Backers Show Unease," ''New York Times'' May 27, 2009]</ref>
* In a 2007 case, she strongly criticized colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, could seek asylum based on China’s abortion policy. “The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child,” she wrote, also taking note of “the unique biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-rearing and parenthood in marriage.”

* In a 2004 case, she sided with anti-abortion protesters who sued police officers for violating their constitutional rights by using excessive force to break up demonstrations at an abortion clinic. Judge Sotomayor said the protesters deserved a day in court.

*She wrote a decision against a pro-choice group in '''Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush'''.<ref>http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2009/05/26/sotomayors-abortion-ruling.aspx</ref> The decision dismissed the claim of a Mexico-based organization which challenged policies requiring that foreign organizations neither perform nor promote abortions as a condition for receiving US funding.

Sotomayor drew a distinction between "necessary" and "family planning" abortions: "For purposes of 22 U.S.C.S. � 2151b(f)(1), "abortion as a method of family planning" does not include abortions performed if the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or abortions performed following rape or incest (since abortion under these circumstances is not a family planning act)."

Sotomayor concluded, "The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."

President Obama recently overturned this decision.

According to the ACLJ, "Though she once ruled in favor of upholding the Mexico City Policy, pro-life organizations say her comment trumps that decision because she appears to favor Roe and how the Supreme Court made abortion policy by allowing abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason."<ref>http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=3322</ref>

===Parental Rights===

In Wilkinson v. Russell, 182 F.3d 89, 108 (2d Cir. Vt. 1999), Sotomayor quoted from Frazier v. Bailey, 957 F.2d 920. She described the case by stating, "In reaching its conclusion, the Frazier court emphasized the murky nature of parental rights". Quoting another case, she said, "Although recognizing that the Constitution extends "certain fundamental parental rights," the court held that plaintiff's allegations did not even "implicate the constitutional guarantees at issue."

===Establishment Clause===

'''Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2006)''' "In an age discrimination challenge by a Methodist clergyman, Judge Winter writing for the majority held that [the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA)] is properly applied to an Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim. Judge Sotomayor dissented contending that RFRA does not apply to disputes between private parties and that the ADEA does not govern disputes between religious entities and their spiritual leaders." <ref>http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-is-high-court-pick-here-are.html</ref>

Sotomayor stated, "The majority's opinion thus violates a cardinal principle of '''judicial restraint''' by reaching unnecessarily the question of RFRA's constitutionality. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent." (emphasis added)

"I believe that a remand is a wasteful expenditure of judicial resources and an unnecessary and uninvited burden on the parties. The district court is in no better position than we are to decide either the statutory or constitutional questions presented in this case. In my view, the most appropriate disposition of this case would be to affirm the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims on the ground that the ADEA does not apply to employment suits brought against religious institutions by their spiritual leaders. Because the majority's contrary approach disregards a clear and voluntary waiver, conflicts with RFRA's text and with binding precedent, and unnecessarily resolves a contested constitutional question, I respectfully dissent."

===Second Amendment===
Independence Institute Research Director Dave Kopel said that Sotomayor's opinions "demonstrate a profound hostility to [[Second Amendment]] rights." Maloney v. Cuomo ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, ''"It is settled law that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."'' This contrasted with the Ninth Circuit decision on Nordyke v. King which upheld the Second Amendment as a deeply held right embodied in the Constitution that transcends state law. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/sotomayor_gun_rights/2009/05/27/218441.html Sotomayor Hostile to Gun Rights, Scholar Says] Newsmax, May 27, 2009</ref>

===Free Speech===
Sotomayor appears to believe in a strong right to free speech.

Sotomayor dissented in '''Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143, 155 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2002)'''
<blockquote>

"The Court holds that the government does not violate the First Amendment when it fires a police department employee for racially inflammatory speech -- where the speech consists of mailings in which the employee did not identify himself, let alone connect himself to the police department; where the speech occurred away from the office and on the employee's own time; where the employee's position involved no policymaking authority or public contact; where there is virtually no evidence of workplace disruption resulting directly from the speech; and where it ultimately required the investigatory resources of two police departments to bring the speech to the attention of the community. Precedent requires us to consider these factors as we apply the Pickering balancing test, and each counsels against granting summary judgment in favor of the police department employer. To be sure, I find the speech in this case patently offensive, hateful, and insulting. The Court should not, however, gloss over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives because it is confronted with speech it does not like and because a government employer fears a potential public response that it alone precipitated."
</blockquote>

===Title IX===
In Pell v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 407 (1998), Sotomayor quoted Kracunas v. Iona College, 119 F.3d 80, 85 (2d Cir. 1997): "When a teacher sexually harasses a student, that teacher discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX."

===Judicial Activism===

"She is a rule-bound pragmatist--very geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law dictates, but her general approach is, unsurprisingly, influenced by her unique background," says one former clerk.<ref>http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085</ref>

ACLJ warns of her record of judicial activism. "Will she embrace her past statement that the “court of appeals is where policy is made?” This nomination raises serious questions about the issue of legislating from the bench."<ref>http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=782</ref>

==Background==

She graduated from [[Princeton University]] in 1976 and earned her law degree from [[Yale University]]in 1979. Sotomayor was appointed a federal district court judge in 1992 by [[President George H.W. Bush]] and then elevated to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals by [[President Bill Clinton]].

Sonia Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent, and was born and raised in Bronx, NY. She graduated from Cardinal Spellman High School in 1972, which is a Catholic school, but it is uncertain where she currently stands in terms of religion.

August 14, 1976, Sotomayor married Kevin Edward Noonan. However, they divorced in 1983 with no children."<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6831739</ref>

"Some sources, including Pete Williams, reported that the Judge is a Catholic. However, there has not yet been any indication of whether that report is accurate and, if so, if she actually practices her [[faith]]."<ref>http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=33654</ref>

"Sotomayor attended Catholic schools, but we haven't yet confirmed that she is, in fact, Catholic. If she is, she would become the sixth Catholic justice on the current Supreme Court."<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6831739</ref>

==Concerns==
[[File:Sonia Sotomayor.jpg|right|250px]]

* Abortion opponents reacted strongly against Sotomayor's nomination Tuesday. Charmaine Yoest, president of [[Americans United for Life]], called Sotomayor "a radical pick that divides America." []

In a speech in 2001, Sotomayor said "she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decision making, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”"<ref>http://www.verumserum.com/?p=5306&cpage=1</ref>

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."<ref>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/05/26/sonia-sotomayor-nominated-for-the-supreme-court/</ref><ref>National Journal, ''Identity Politics And Sotomayor, The judge's thinking is representative of the Democratic Party's powerful identity-politics wing.'', by Stuart Taylor, Saturday, May 23, 2009 [http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090523_2724.php]</ref>

"The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it."<ref>http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085</ref>

"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee called Sotomayor’s appointment “the clearest indication yet that President Obama’s campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric.”<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22965.html</ref>

"Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life, blasted Sotomayor as “a radical pick that divides America. She believes the role of the Court is to set policy, which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board."<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22965.html</ref>

Sotomayor is a member of National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420 Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'] WND, May 27, 2009</ref>

She is currently under fire for a statement she made in a 2001 speech at University of California's Berkeley School of Law. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/alerts/2009/may09/05-26-09.html Analysis of Sotomayor's judicial philosophy]

[[Category:United States Judges]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]